October 14, 2015

Says Katherine Mangu-Ward at Reason.com. What Sanders said was: "Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

Does Mangu-Ward mean that Sanders actually thinks the mother should stay home with the baby or did she mean to say it's actually true that the mother should stay home with the baby? If she only meant the former, didn't she make a Kinsley gaffe?

That a mother should stay home with her child if doing so is possible is a truth that Democrats under certain circumstances imply but can never openly admit. This is because the issue points to the contradictory positions Democrats hold. On the one hand, Democrats pander to upper middle class and wealthy women by demanding handouts in the form of mandated lengthy maternity leave. The unspoken assumption behind such policies is that a mother should stay home with her children. On the other hand, Democrats pander to single women by embracing the radical feminist idea that there is no biological difference between men and women and the only reason women are not doing exactly the same thing and as well are better in every single field endeavor as men is because of sexism. This contradicts the assumption that women have any special duty or there is any benefit to mothers staying at home with their children.

Democrats are supposed to leave the assumption that mothers should be home with their children unspoken when pandering to married women by advocating mandated and extended maternity leave. Sanders didn't and that was his mistake.

I have a lot of women who are mothers that report to me. They would all rather be at home, today's economy won't allow it.

Women have always worked outside the home due to economic necessity. However the goal used to be the father supporting the family while the mother raised the children and did housework. That is now considered Patriarchal oppression.

I don't know about the "Kinsley gaffe" but something entirely different stuck out.

""Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.""

Do countries have the ability to say things?

Even if we assume that most of the people in a country agree that a woman should have the ability to stay home with her child. This does not imply that the government is obliged to see to it that she is provided the means to do this. I think most people would agree that prospective parents ought to determine if they have the means to raise a child before they make one.

The reason it's a gaffe is that Sanders likely meant--if he's sticking with the usual leftist line on the issue--that other countries have policies that make it easier for women to choose to stay home with the baby, if that's what she wants. (Whether it's a wise policy or won't have negative repercussions on budgets and incentives is another matter of course, but that's at least the leftist argument)

His quote though sounds more like "women should stay home with babies, and government should make this happen" which of course gets into not just nanny-state but strict-nanny-disciplinarian-state.

Listening to these promises being made in primary campaigns is a lot like listening to some kid tell Santa she wants a pony when you know full well she's getting socks and a cheap doll.

In most rural parts of the Muslim world and in sub-Saharan Africa, you see women stooping out in the fields, while the males are sipping tea or beer swapping lies in the little villages. I guess this counts in Bernie's world as stay-at-home moms, just as the American welfare queens do.Socialists just can't get over their 19th century anger at the industrial revolution for taking fathers (and then mothers) out of their idyllic serfdom.

"Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

A reasonable interpretation of "every one ... say that when a mother has a bahy, she should stay home with that baby" is that there is a mandate that she do so, and if she doesn't she'll be subject to criminal prosecution.

What he probably meant to say was that if a mother is financially unable to do this then the rest of us should be taxed so government can pay her to do so.

But speaking just for me, if you wish to be free to live as you please then don't come back and say, "BUT you must pay for my choice!" Because, "I choose, you pay" is going to work only until those who pay find ways to limit your choices.

"We don't want to support you. Please ask your husband/father of your child if he can support your baby before you conceive one, and complain of lack of financial support.

When the "government" helps, it is usually uninvolved others being asked to kick in. See, healthcare."

I often heard the argument from pro choicers that repubs only care about life in the womb, they don't care about anyone once they're born. What are they expecting republicans to do? Personally subsidize other people? We have a safety net that is paid for with taxes. What more should people be obligated to provide? Should we take tests for the kids so they graduate school? should we cut up their food so they dont' choke? pay for their rent? No one is doing that for me. Why would I be required to do it for others?

Sanders probably meant women should be able to stay home with their babies and that the Family Leave Act should be strengthened. I don't think for a minute he was suggesting that all women should stay home with the baby.

The man's time for "choice" comes before he deposits his sperm into the woman.

Not always. Men have been forced to pay child support to their rapists, and to pay child support after the woman has impregnated herself with sperm that was "deposited" elsewhere, like from a discarded condom.

The woman's (final) time for "choice" comes after his sperm is deposited in her, and does not leave...

..and our precise argument is that her opportunity for choice should occur at the same time as men's, before the sex occurs.

Biology (and technology) now awards woman the final say on "choice".

No a crappy Supreme Court decision does that.

Sorry, boys, it is a timing thing, just as for generations, you fellas had the "final" choice in making your deposits.

Actually, apart from rapists, women have always had the final say on whether or not sex occurs.

"What's Bernie's point? Companies should provide one year paid FMLA? You can't run a business employing people who aren't actually at work."

You can, if you pay your employees much less and if government pays for some of the benefits and services involved.

Sweden can do that by, you guessed it, paying employees less, and, you guessed it, collecting more taxes from the poor--higher income taxes, taxes on benefits, and regressive consumptions/VAT taxes.

An honest leftist would spell that out. Then the voters can decide. There are honest leftists, but not in the Dem party. This is why the GOP has to be the party of no. We could make a deal with responsible Swedish social democrats. Dems will just demagogue for ever more transfers--it's never enough for them.

"An honest leftist would spell that out. Then the voters can decide. There are honest leftists, but not in the Dem party. This is why the GOP has to be the party of no. We could make a deal with responsible Swedish social democrats. Dems will just demagogue for ever more transfers--it's never enough for them."

Hell, just put it out to the people--do you want all these benefits the Dems are promising? Go ahead--just ask them where the money is coming from and see if it makes sense. If voters want lower real wages and higher taxes, they can make that happen. And when they're done realizing that taxing more and more from the rich won't bring the revenue they want (and results in less business growth and more unemployment as well) and have to make the middle class pick up more of the tab, they can keep that right on. Maybe our GDP can sink down to number four or five before the morons figure out there is no free lunch.

And point out to the childless that they should be happy to take less salary and pay more taxes so that their breeder co-workers can stay home with their snot-rockets, because society. Think that's unfair? Clearly you have an anti-social attitude, comrade!

"Safe haven laws shield the parent or agent of the parent from prosecution for abandonment or neglect.

Wow, you don't say. So, they don't have to assume parental responsibility? SO then why must men assume parental responsibility?

"Relinquishment of a newborn is legal only if the relinquished newborn is within the age limit permitted by state laws.And by the same token, if she realizes she can't afford her kid and hasn't had an abortion she still doesn't need to assume parental responsibility and can drop it off at a hospital, and wont be prosecuted. I assume she doesn't need to tell the dad that he is even a dad. No questions asked. The baby is not in her womb at this point.

And if you don't think we've figured out that women are f****** liars half the time (go ahead baby, its okay this time...guess I was wrong, teehee) it's really not worth discussing. Men should have no responsibility whatsoever, then perhaps women would be more careful about the men they sleep with. Or the methods of contraception they use.

Of course every fertile woman is a potential mother. Words mean things. If you are capable of getting pregnant then you are a potential mother. A fertile woman is one capable of getting pregnant. Why don't you just say what's true: that you want to be in charge? Then we can get along with laughing you out of the county.

I get it, we get it, you're a dyke or a cat lady, you would never have a man inside you, let alone come inside you. But, if you did, and if your eggs haven't expired yet, then yes, you too are a potential mother.

It's a fact question not an opinion question. I understand you don't like that because it makes you lose, but I don't care that you don't like it.

Absolute wealth differences are not the relevant issue. There will always be a select few people who enjoy beachfront properties in Hawaii. The issue is inflationary economics that deprive people of equitable return for their labor.

Social services can only be considered legitimate when a society recognizes intrinsic value. The goal, however, is a reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value.

As for women and men, there is a further reconciliation of natural imperatives. Sanders' and feminists' (both male and female) prescriptions serve a population comprised of nominal adults. The State-established pro-choice cult is a quasi-religious institution that enables adults to indulge in juvenile fantasies and shift responsibility.

While women and men may contribute to evolutionary fitness directly or obliquely, there is no legitimate argument to normalize or promote the latter in a population. Men and women need to learn the fine art of adults making viable choices and both can have it all, eventually, in turn.

Or women for that matter. (not paying child support).Suppose a woman gives up her child and drops it off at a hospital. A man later determines that the kid that was abandoned was his own. He knows that she is the mother. Should he ask her for child support? She gave up the kid, under safe haven laws, and isn't obligated to pay for her kid.

This assumes that all women should be viewed as mothers, or potential mothers.

Biologically, that is simple reality.

That was basic biological "common sense" before technology and birth control advance, Gahrie.

Given that none have a 100% success rate, it is still simple biological reality.

We need to stop viewing all men as fathers, or potential fathers, as well.

Except that is also true biologically. Feelings don't trump biology and science.

Sanders probably meant women should be able to stay home with their babies and that the Family Leave Act should be strengthened. I don't think for a minute he was suggesting that all women should stay home with the baby.

I'll go with "What if a Republican said this", if you don't mind. Bernie hates chicks.

On the one hand, Democrats pander to upper middle class and wealthy women by demanding handouts in the form of mandated lengthy maternity leave.

Since most of the comments on this thread will be deleted eventually, I'll respond to this. You're absolutely right. It's not a shift worker at Burger King that will take maternity leave at 65% pay, it's the people who could probably afford to stay at home for the three months anyway. What a crock!

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island already have guaranteed paid parental leave, which is funded by employees’ payroll deductions that cost individual employees less than $1 a week. That's from an article in Fortune magazine. The article also says that the mandated paid leave hasn’t hurt most employers’ bottom lines.

All the gaffes that were missed by the pro-dem hack MSM. or -the MSMJonah Goldberg noticed another:

"This should properly be considered a Kinsley gaffe in that she accidentally told the truth. For much of the night, she stuck to her focus-grouped talking points, boasting about how she knows how to build consensus and work the system in Washington “to get things done.” And then, in a spontaneous slip, she revealed that she considers Republicans — altogether — not only her enemy, but the enemy she is most proud of. It would have been nice if Anderson Cooper, Jim Webb or one of the pushovers on stage had seized that point and asked, “How can you talk about building consensus when you’ve just boasted that you consider all Republicans your enemy?” Clinton is much more of a Manichean than she usually lets on. That’s one reason she keeps Sid Blumenthal on retainer as a Wormtongue. He says the things about Republican conspirators she wants to hear and believe."

"This should properly be considered a Kinsley gaffe in that she accidentally told the truth. For much of the night, she stuck to her focus-grouped talking points, boasting about how she knows how to build consensus and work the system in Washington “to get things done.” And then, in a spontaneous slip, she revealed that she considers Republicans — altogether — not only her enemy, but the enemy she is most proud of. It would have been nice if Anderson Cooper, Jim Webb or one of the pushovers on stage had seized that point and asked, “How can you talk about building consensus when you’ve just boasted that you consider all Republicans your enemy?” Clinton is much more of a Manichean than she usually lets on. That’s one reason she keeps Sid Blumenthal on retainer as a Wormtongue. He says the things about Republican conspirators she wants to hear and believe."

It is absolutely disgusting to have a major party nominee write off the other party as an "enemy"--not the opposition, but an enemy, the same words we'd used to describe Hitler in 1942. Not only can you not build coalitions when you write off the other half of the country, you can't lead in any meaningful way.

She needs to be called out on this, and hard--I'm sure she'd come back with "I was just joking" or "I meant the way they treat me, I don't think they're evil" but take this fight to her. It reveals more about her way of thinking and why she inspires such disgust among half the country.

I'd say the same about any Republican nominee who expressed that feeling towards Democrats. Campaigns are campaigns, and we do have opposition parties, but once you consider the other side actually evil you have crossed the line into banana republic territory.

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island already have guaranteed paid parental leave, which is funded by employees’ payroll deductions that cost individual employees less than $1 a week. That's from an article in Fortune magazine. The article also says that the mandated paid leave hasn’t hurt most employers’ bottom lines.

Explains why those states are so highly regarded for businesses. Really.

All this talk is a purposefully provoked argument intended to obfuscate. The purpose of the proposed policy is to extend the opportunity to steal OPM and deliver the proceeds to those who participate in the scam (i.e., Dem voters). That is all.

It is absolutely disgusting to have a major party nominee write off the other party as an "enemy"--not the opposition, but an enemy, the same words we'd used to describe Hitler in 1942. Not only can you not build coalitions when you write off the other half of the country, you can't lead in any meaningful way.

I'm not a Hillary apologist -- honest. I shudder at the thought of her as president. But I think we need to put that "enemy" comment in the context of the debate. Here from the full transcript:

COOPER: And welcome back to the final round of the CNN Democratic presidential debate.

This is a question to each of you. Each of you, by the way, are going to have closing statements to make. Each of you will have 90 seconds. But a final question to each of you. If you can, just try to — 15 seconds if you can.

Governor Chafee, Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” You’ve all made a few people upset over your political careers. Which enemy are you most proud of?

(LAUGHTER)

CHAFEE: I guess the coal lobby. I’ve worked hard for climate change and I want to work with the coal lobby. But in my time in the Senate, tried to bring them to the table so that we could address carbon dioxide. I’m proud to be at odds with the coal lobby.

COOPER: Governor O’Malley?

O’MALLEY: The National Rifle Association.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.

(LAUGHTER)

Probably the Republicans. (LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: As someone who has taken on probably every special interest that there is in Washington, I would lump Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry at the top of my life of people who do not like me.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Webb?

WEBB: I’d have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk to.

COOPER: All right. Time for closing statements. Each of you will have 90 seconds.

Wikipedia: A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.

Ann Althouse (from Katherine Mangu-Ward): A Kingley gaffe -- where a politician accidentally reveals a truth he did not intend to admit.

While differently worded these definitions are essentially the same. Mangu-Ward's use of "accidentally" is superfluous. A gaff is by definition a ill-timed, unguarded, or otherwise accidental utterance. An intentional gaff is a contradiction. When a gaffe is intentional it ceases to be a gaff, and becomes instead a Machiavellian stratagem. Machiavelli's theory centers on the proposition that the first and only task of the prince is to gain and retain power. Applying that dictum to republics has the office holder's sole duty to be staying in office. To stay in office the unprincipled politician must shift his positions constantly, to adapt himself to the trends of public opinion, and do so in such a way as to be seen to be leading rather than following. (All of us can think of one or two political chameleons who shift and squirm in just this way, though the fashionable term now is "evolve.") A well-executed "political gaff" can function as what was formerly known as a trial balloon, something offered for the public to react to. As a tactic the intentional gaffe is obsolete, largely replaced by push polling.

The troublesome part of the Kinley gaff is the notion that a truth is revealed. Unless one holds that politicians are treasure troves of arcane wisdom disclosed to the uninitiated only by accident (a favorite trope of UFO cultist, btw) the hidden truth must be something about the politician personal convictions, philosophy, sexual proclivities, or financial activities, that would be impolitic to make known to the voters, like the stock portfolio of a self-proclaimed socialist, or the pornography collection of a social conservative. Consequently the Kinsley gaff can be precisely qualified as a special case of parapraxis, the so-called "Freudian slip." in which the repression is deliberate rather than subliminal. Socialists and social democrats are particularly vulnerable to this kind of conflict because virtually any political line of reasoning if developed logically from historical evidence will lead to a contradiction of socialist principles.

What does not follow from the definition is Althouse's idea that Mangu-Ward has herself committed a Kinsley gaff. By definition a Kinsley gaff is an accidental utterance of a politician. Mangu-Ward is a journalist. Unless one merges these two categories it is logically impossible for Katherine Mangu-Ward to gaff in the Kinsley manner.

A mans choice is this: I want to be a dad. Fuck you.I don't want to be a dad. Fuck you.

Meanwhile if youre a woman - my career. Fuck the kid and fuck the dad. If I don't want the abortion but I don't want to be a mom - Here, you can do all this cool stuff. YOu want to drop the baby on a doorstep? Empowerment! YOu want to give it up for adoption. Yo go girl.If youre a man, and have the exact same objection to being a dad, fuck you, it takes two to tango. You now have to pay for MY choice. Or, if a woman doesn't tell the man he's going to be a dad and drops the kid off at a hostpital doorstep, fuck you. I don't have to tell you you're a dad. I get to completely give up my parental rights because I have a vagina!!!!

And the man woudlnt' have to pay for his offspring if the women aborted the kid. The reason the baby is in the world at all has nothing do with the choice of the man. (Even if he wanted it). If you are the sole chooser, you should not get to then obligate others to pay for your choice. You pay for your choice.

if this weren't a man, but a woman dropping her baby off at a hospital, the state would assume the cost of the kid and woudlnt' even question that its ok for the women to completely waive paternity. Is that fair? As a man, asked to honor womens equality, I cant help but note that said laws are skewed completely against ME. Is that what patriarchy is all about? You get all the advantages and I have the responsibility to pay for them? Sounds awesome.

I'm actually not pro abortion, and pro parents paying for their kids. I'm merely pointing out the laws completely skew one way at the detriment of MY sex. Its not logical to have safe haven laws, but then demand that dads be responsible to pay for their kdis. Since you didn't require that of the mom. It's not logical to say moms can opt out, even after the baby is born, but the dad has to pay simply because the woman made a choice. I see totally why YOU are for it. Because you get all the advantages of the scenario.

Men should have no responsibility whatsoever, then perhaps women would be more careful about the men they sleep with.

How about the men paying child support for other men;s children ? In some studies when DNA testing became common, 25% of children were not related to the legal "father" when testing in support cases. It didn't matter. The guy still had to pay,

Sanders probably meant women should be able to stay home with their babies and that the Family Leave Act should be strengthened. I don't think for a minute he was suggesting that all women should stay home with the baby.

I bet you wouldn't have been so charitable and understanding if a Republican had said it though.........

Sanders problem is a Democratic Party's coalition problem. Some parts of the coalition have little in common or outright conflicting positions compared to other parts of the coalition. What he says here is works for part of the party and not the other.

The proper way to talk to the Democratic Party base is to use vague platitudes that mean nothing but are interpreted as supporting the position of whatever bloc, else you end up with with incoherent positions that get turned into things like "colleges are rape cultures that everyone should attend for free."

With the right *if ...* preface, you can eventually write something that sounds interesting, so forget Althouse's prompt. Sanders meant we should have more paid leave for *mothers* w/ newborns, period. This does imply a higher value on women raising infants than men. But this is in the acceptable-sexism space for both traditionalists (who want her at home period) and feminists (who want favorable treatment in general).

Missed this before. . .What the Swedes do is this: parental leave lasts for 18 months. Mom takes most, dad takes some. Then the tyke is trundled off to daycare. And that's pretty much universally the case -- once the kid hits daycare age, there is no "stay-at-home mom." Because daycare is free, living costs (and taxes) are high, and what would you do if you didn't know any other moms who were at home during the day?

And I think that's pretty much what Sanders, Obama, Clinton -- the whole lot of them -- want.

You can't run a business employing people who aren't actually at work.

This. And what liberals don't want to admit is someone has to bear the cost of this. It might manifest itself in lower wages across the board, higher prices, etc. There isn't magical pool of cash that companies hoard that can be accessed for this purpose.